Should Ron Paul run as a third party?

[Muldur]

This is what I don't like about him (well, okay, one of the many things):
These are direct quotes from Ron Paul (emphases are mine).


Also!

Paul may be off base about homeopathy, but he's right about medical schools keeping the number of doctors low to protect incomes.

 

[Muldur]

@Axiom_Blade



OK, so the part about "...endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property" is a little unusual. But the first part is bascially a fact. It is a simple fact that no one has a right to medical care. It is not a right. It is not written in the constitution that people have a right to see a doctor if they are hurt or injured. That is not really a right. Ron Paul is telling the truth.

So, what am I missing? What do you dislike about this?

Firstly, there is the language in the Declaration of Independence, which sets forth the "mission statement" of the US, which says that the first self-evident right of all men (citizens) is that of Life. By extension, the right to live MUST include the right to those things required to live, or declaring the right is meaningless.

Then there is the Preamble, which, among other things, says the purpose of the Constitution as a whole is to "establish justice", "ensure domestic tranquility", and "promote the general welfare". Supplying health care to the citizens fulfills all those purposes.

Finally, there is the 9th and 10th amendments, which state that there are more rights than those enumerated, and that the unenumerated rights belong to the states and to the people (individual citizens).

And looking past the issue of the Constitution entirely, there is the larger issue of human rights, which are universal rights of ALL people irrespective of what some piece of paper says.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Paul may be off base about homeopathy, but he's right about medical schools keeping the number of doctors low to protect incomes.

There are a few other reasons, but my last reading of the issue is hazy now.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Arguing from facts not in evidence.



No.



Horse feathers. The patient has a right to refuse service.

Not if health care is a right. Psychiatrists are doctors too. People can be deemed unfit to make that decision. And if the patient is unable to communitate, it would be a goldmine for the doctors who could take advantage if it was a right.

What Ron Paul said is the truth. Just because it is not what anyone whats to believe, does not make it a lie.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Cow cookies. I keep hearing republicon blathermeisters telling me that we do not get our rights from the constitution, but from God.

That is not what I said nor implied. A right to healthcare is not in the Consititution.

 

[Bill Thompson]

This is ony a partial truth. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits our establishing such infrastructure that makes these services available to all.

That is not the same thing.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Not if health care is a right. Psychiatrists are doctors too. People can be deemed unfit to make that decision. And if the patient is unable to communitate, it would be a goldmine for the doctors who could take advantage if it was a right.

So, if universal health care is such an inherently broken idea, that can be exploited and make society fall apart, how is it that every other first-world country is able to implement it? Even super-capitalist Japan has universal health care!

What Ron Paul said is the truth.

No offense, but saying this over and over again makes you sound like a cultist. Also, I think that Paul would agree with me that we don't get our rights from the government or the Constitution. The Constitution recognizes rights; it doesn't dictate them. The fact that those rights are recognized and respected is what makes our country great. Moreover, it is a living document, and we revise it as our society evolves.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So, if universal health care is such an inherently broken idea, that can be exploited and make society fall apart, how is it that every other first-world country is able to implement it? Even super-capitalist Japan has universal health care!

How good is it?

I do know that in the old Soviet Union it was a pathetic for everyone. I do know that in Brazil today where everyone has universal health care the most common cause of death is from infection. And Brazil has surpased Canada as the most advanced country in the Americas behind the USA.

Isn't it true that people in the USA today can go to clinics that pay on a sliding scale?

In a perfect world it would be great if everyone got the best of the best healthcare but where is the money going to come from to pay for it? We are in debt to China. I know Michael Moore says we are not broke. How true is that? What does Michael Moore know that TV show Frontline, does not know. I think it is the other way around. Real reporters know we cannot afford it without burdening the public.

As I understand it, from the TV show, Frontline, after 9-11-2001 The Department of Homeland Security was given a blank check to build as many secret facilities and hire as many people as they needed and going into debt with China would pay for it and we are just barely keeping our head above water. Why else does Obama health care plan involve a new tax on everyone in the USA to pay for it?

Japan is not the USA in many structural and governmental ways. Japan does not have to pay for a military like the USA has to. In fact, we pretty much take care of that for them.

Japan has univeral health care and it works for them. That only means they are more fortunate all-around than we are. It does not mean that we can wave a magic wand and make us just like them.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I personally would be verry happy if Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate.
How can I encourage him to do so?


ETA: RUN FOREST, RUN!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

.. But it really isn't since the two main parties in the 1860 election were Republicans and Democrats.

Oh, I get it. Because the Republicans didn't go head-to-head against the Whigs in the presidential election, it wasn't a "third party victory". What really happened is that the Whigs had already fallen by that time, and the GOP stepped in to fill a void. I guess I could buy that.

At first I thought that you were splitting hairs here, but what this implies is that a third party might have to wait until one of the two big parties implodes before they get a shot at the presidency. Which is sad, if true.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, I get it. Because the Republicans didn't go head-to-head against the Whigs in the presidential election, it wasn't a "third party victory". What really happened is that the Whigs had already fallen by that time, and the GOP stepped in to fill a void. I guess I could buy that.

At first I thought that you were splitting hairs here, but what this implies is that a third party might have to wait until one of the two big parties implodes before they get a shot at the presidency. Which is sad, if true.

That is generally my drift. I'd say the 1860 election was the first example of big-tent parties, which continues on to today.

And the other option is to go to ranked voting or a more parliamentary system. Not sure either is entirely desirable, but I can't say I'd vote against either~

 

[Travis]

But fiat currency has also had boom and bust as we are now seeing. Maybe there are pros and cons to both fiat and the gold standard, but to say that the gold standard is insane seems to be an extremist view.

We are really in the first bust in the almost century since we dropped the gold standard. That should tell you something. What's more is the fact that we would have no way to get out of this situation if we didn't have a fiat currency.

You talk about the death toll in your hypothetical scenario, I will remind you that the Iraq war has already provided a colossal death toll. I would also suggest that attempting to invade/destroy a nuclear armed Israel is suicidal.

I'm not sure why we are talking about Iraq here. And invading Israel might be suicidal but so was flying airliners into buildings.

Isn't it true that people in the USA today can go to clinics that pay on a sliding scale?

These exist only in movies as far as I have found. Trust me, I haven't had health insurance in almost ten years and every place makes me pay full price no matter how broke I might be at that moment.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Such places also tend to disappear - the last one locally's been gone a year or so.

 

[madfoot]

If medical care was made a "right" by the government, then a doctor could easily abuse that system. He could inforce a patient's survival against the patient's wishes and the wishes of the patient's family and as a result take all of their money or all of the government's money -- which is all of our money. There would be no limit on the cost or what the doctor could charge because the care of the patient is a basic right.

Bad argument. What you're trying to get at is positive vs. negative rights. And it's not a system that can be abused as much as it is two competing philosophies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Cow cookies. I keep hearing republicon blathermeisters telling me that we do not get our rights from the constitution, but from God.

Natural law doesn't require mythology.

 

[daredelvis]

How good is it?

I do know that in the old Soviet Union it was a pathetic for everyone.

Do you think there may have been any other factors that made that so? The old Soviet Union had some other confounding factors that may have impacted healthcare delivery.

I do know that in Brazil today where everyone has universal health care the most common cause of death is from infection. And Brazil has surpased Canada as the most advanced country in the Americas behind the USA.

The old "Things are awful in Brazil, everything is great in Brazil" argument. What is your point? Is deaths from infection the proper metric for judging a health care system (assuming if your unsupported assertion is true)? Canada also has universal health care. This argument makes no sense.

Isn't it true that people in the USA today can go to clinics that pay on a sliding scale?

Some can, but overall, no. If you are diagnosed with cancer, and you want to be treated, you better have insurance, or a big bank account.

In a perfect world it would be great if everyone got the best of the best healthcare but where is the money going to come from to pay for it? We are in debt to China. I know Michael Moore says we are not broke. How true is that? What does Michael Moore know that TV show Frontline, does not know. I think it is the other way around. Real reporters know we cannot afford it without burdening the public.

What qualifies one as a real reporter? Is it simply not being Michael Moore? Being in debt to China does not equal being broke. There are other issues facing the nation that are far more important than short term debt.

As I understand it, from the TV show, Frontline, after 9-11-2001 The Department of Homeland Security was given a blank check to build as many secret facilities and hire as many people as they needed and going into debt with China would pay for it and we are just barely keeping our head above water. Why else does Obama health care plan involve a new tax on everyone in the USA to pay for it?

???

Japan is not the USA in many structural and governmental ways. Japan does not have to pay for a military like the USA has to. In fact, we pretty much take care of that for them.

Japan has univeral health care and it works for them. That only means they are more fortunate all-around than we are. It does not mean that we can wave a magic wand and make us just like them.

The United States spends a S-load more money per capita than Japan on healthcare, and they have a much longer life expectancy. As a fiscal conservative, I think we should adopt their model to reduce expenses.


Oh, and I totally think Paul should run. He would totally win and everything would be great. We could go back to 1860 America. Human chattel and bubonic plague FTW!
Daredelvis

 

[Muldur]

It is also interesting to see that Iowans are being threatened with having their bellwether status being taken away from them if they produce a 'bad result' and vote for Paul. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when he surges in NH.

It's a status they should lose in any event. No one state should be considered more significant than any other electorally. I favor a "done in one" primary where the candidates are selected in one day, just like the general election.

 

[Muldur]

dupe

 

[Muldur]

Bad argument. What you're trying to get at is positive vs. negative rights. And it's not a system that can be abused as much as it is two competing philosophies.

There is no such thing as a "negative right" or "negative obligation right". ALL rights are encumbered by obligations on others, if only the obligation to respect the right.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And the Republican Party began in 1854. Lincoln (who was a former Whig, by the way) was elected in 1861.
That sounds like a third party to me.

More accurately, it was a new second party.

At any rate, the modern two parties are more properly thought of as coalitions. (Think about the very very different kinds of political subgroups within the Democratic Party. Everything from Progressive Democrats to the Blue Dogs.)

3rd parties don't stand a realistic chance because their supporters are already in the broad coalitions of one (or both) of the other two parties. So they'll either be subsumed into the larger party (as with the "Tea Party") or they'll be seen as a "spoiler" party on capable of stealing some relatively few votes from one of the larger parties.

At the national level, anyway. It's a different story within states, and especially in local elections (school boards, and so on).

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So, who would a Paul third party run hurt more, Romney or Obama?